United States v. Charles Earl Warren

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Charles Earl Warren

687 F.2d 347, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25326

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 27, 1982

Docket81-7172

StatusPublished

Cited by46 cases

This text of 687 F.2d 347 (United States v. Charles Earl Warren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Charles Earl Warren, 687 F.2d 347, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25326 (11th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Warren was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. All issues concern the validity of the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress. The motion was referred to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate conducted an evidentiary hearing, issued a report and recommendation that the motion be denied, and informed the parties that objections must be filed to his report within 10 days. Warren filed no objections. The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate and denied the motion to suppress.

The absence of objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendations limits the scope of appellate review of factual findings to plain error or manifest injustice but does not limit review of legal conclusions. Hardin v. Wainwright, 678 F.2d 589, 591 (5th Cir. 1982); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 405, 410 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc).

There is neither plain error nor manifest injustice in the fact-findings by the magistrate and no error in the legal conclusions.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Warren was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. All issues concern the validity of the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress. The motion was referred to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate conducted an evidentiary hearing, issued a report and recommendation that the motion be denied, and informed the parties that objections must be filed to his report within 10 days. Warren filed no objections. The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate and denied the motion to suppress.

The absence of objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendations limits the scope of appellate review of factual findings to plain error or manifest injustice but does not limit review of legal conclusions. Hardin v. Wainwright, 678 F.2d 589, 591 (5th Cir. 1982); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 405, 410 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc).

There is neither plain error nor manifest injustice in the fact-findings by the magistrate and no error in the legal conclusions.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 F.2d 347, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-earl-warren-ca11-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack